After restoring my computer due to a virus, I've lost my previous rendering settings, and they worked pretty well. I have horrible memory when it comes to these things. I rendered in MPEG2, and that's all I can remember. But, that aside, I'd like to know what are considered really good rendering settings. I need VERY good quality, as I'm entering a couple amv contests, and having a 640x360 blown up on an enormous screen can destroy quality as it is, let alone what it'll look like with pitiful settings. Any help would be appreciated.

vegas has a more compatible and industry standard professional H.264 Codec built in. If you have H.264 Professional encoder, such as CoreAVC on your PC, Vegas will detect it. Use that at level 4.2 at your projects settings with correct framerate and progressive scan. 3mbps should be optimal.

kickass331 wrote:vegas has a more compatible and industry standard professional H.264 Codec built in. If you have H.264 Professional encoder, such as CoreAVC on your PC, Vegas will detect it. Use that at level 4.2 at your projects settings with correct framerate and progressive scan. 3mbps should be optimal.

So in one sentence Vegas has a codec built in and in the other you need professional encoder installed?Does not compute.

Also, the internal encoder in Vegas, while not fail completely, can never be up to date and stuff. AND 3mbps is ridiculously large when you don't even know what is the guy's frame size, in 480p 1500kbps is usually totally enough unless it's some super-high-speed action.

kickass331 wrote:vegas has a more compatible and industry standard professional H.264 Codec built in. If you have H.264 Professional encoder, such as CoreAVC on your PC, Vegas will detect it. Use that at level 4.2 at your projects settings with correct framerate and progressive scan. 3mbps should be optimal.

So in one sentence Vegas has a codec built in and in the other you need professional encoder installed?Does not compute.

Also, the internal encoder in Vegas, while not fail completely, can never be up to date and stuff. AND 3mbps is ridiculously large when you don't even know what is the guy's frame size, in 480p 1500kbps is usually totally enough unless it's some super-high-speed action.

I mentioned CoreAVC since the built in encoder is outdated, and I said 3mbps because I do 3mbps since I fucking hate even a single block or 1 frame that has banding. It's a personal thing. You can encode to MPEG-2 and convert to H.264 but I use CoreAVC Professional since Vegas doesn't recognize x264.exe builds or xvid builds, I also get DivX Professional. Also, I always use Vegas Professional, even if a newer version of Vegas is out. For audio however, I mux in a lossless or lossless -> AAC transfer right from the CD. I import in vegas as FLAC, (8.0 supports it and probably 9.0) and then I export as AAC 320k, ATRAC 352k, or PCM, and sometimes FLAC if the option is there, whatever is most reasonable.

Nya-chan Production wrote:Yeah, and I again ask - why encode straight when you can render and then encode and get better result? No problem with banding at all, unless you fuck up majorly. All that you need is more time |:

I am talking about Pro all the time.

Why do you use flac, btw? Nothing against it, but why bother with flac and not feed it wav directly?

it's called efficiency. WAV takes up more space than flac or wavpack, Lossless takes up more space than MPEG-2, encoding is about compression. From now on my source files will be made with the latest H.264+ encoder from H265.net, self-compiled. That way I can put useful files on my harddrive like lolicon, which, by the way, I do not transcode and get in PNG when possible. also music, like Danger Doom FLACs. Ape is not very compatible, and WavPack isn't as popular or mainstream as FLAC, muse, shorten, true type, etc. are all defunct, yet I use foobar2000 to transcode those to FLAC or WavPack if I'm not utilizing them in Vegas.

kickass331 wrote:it's called efficiency. WAV takes up more space than flac or wavpack, Lossless takes up more space than MPEG-2, encoding is about compression.

(the rest is just you boasting, so I omitted it)

Not that much and you can lose quality or make mistakes in that process. Also saying someone cares about space with today's prices of HDDs (most of editors I know have TBs of space) is nonsense.

lose quality? FLAC is Lossless, PCM is Lossless, FLAC Compression levels are for optimizing in silence and low waveform amplitude. PCM is not an Adaptive encoder, it is linear. Also, I generally prefer FLAC because it sounds cooler and is open source. And so what if the space you save is negligible, Whenever I archive material, I put it in non-solid ultra inefficient 7-zip containers that take 10 times longer to open and only open with 7-zip. Why? Because of distribution purposes. Sure, physical media is rarely limited, but cloud and infastructure media relies on efficiency. If youtube streamed lagarith, do you think millions of people would go there every day? I think not, for client/ server bandwidth, storage, decoding, upload time, and in addition transcoding the lossy uploads into futile lossless streaming videos. The information age is defined by the amount of data complexity you can preserve. Codecs were designed with the intention of efficiency as the very top most priority. this applies as well in commercial industries such as broadcast television, in fact interlacing was developed for efficiency, and interlacing is one of the most discussed topics on AV forums universally. That's my bowl of nachos.

kickass331 wrote:it's called efficiency. WAV takes up more space than flac or wavpack, Lossless takes up more space than MPEG-2, encoding is about compression.

(the rest is just you boasting, so I omitted it)

Not that much and you can lose quality or make mistakes in that process. Also saying someone cares about space with today's prices of HDDs (most of editors I know have TBs of space) is nonsense.

lose quality? FLAC is Lossless, PCM is Lossless, FLAC Compression levels are for optimizing in silence and low waveform amplitude. PCM is not an Adaptive encoder, it is linear. Also, I generally prefer FLAC because it sounds cooler and is open source. And so what if the space you save is negligible, Whenever I archive material, I put it in non-solid ultra inefficient 7-zip containers that take 10 times longer to open and only open with 7-zip. Why? Because of distribution purposes. Sure, physical media is rarely limited, but cloud and infastructure media relies on efficiency. If youtube streamed lagarith, do you think millions of people would go there every day? I think not, for client/ server bandwidth, storage, decoding, upload time, and in addition transcoding the lossy uploads into futile lossless streaming videos. The information age is defined by the amount of data complexity you can preserve. Codecs were designed with the intention of efficiency as the very top most priority. this applies as well in commercial industries such as broadcast television, in fact interlacing was developed for efficiency, and interlacing is one of the most discussed topics on AV forums universally. That's my bowl of nachos.

Yep, we can talk about eficiency when you download stuff.When you make lossless, edit, make render, encode, delete render and lossless, any type of saving is basically useless since you end up with final encode only anyways. Yes, I do listen to flac. But editing with flac instead of wav is like spitting in the ocean - "Hey, I saved 30% out of 30MB for few days/weeks".

Unless you save all of your subclips and renders, in which case i can understand you constantly run out of space and have to keep it smaller for the price of quality and get new HDDS |:

When I rip material, I have to basically decrypt the dvd/blu ray and store uncompressed VOBs on my Hard Drive, this takes up many times the space of the material I use for editing. While I am doing AviSynth work, I have to have this original material, and when I encode the source I have to have both. Then if I'm happy I can remove the original material. If I am doing a rather large project that takes multiple blu rays, I could be dealing with 100s of gbs of space being taken up by these decrypted raw files. That's why if I can cut the amount of space my source files take in half by encoding as MPEG-2, MPEG-4, etc. then safely remove the decrypted vobs, I have nearly the same quality and plenty of space to add more raw material, not to mention encoding more source material. Decrypting is an unfortunate step, and me being anti-DRM, anti-HDCP, and a true believer in an open and trusting media, game, music world feel like a fucktard when I buy these shitty discs. They cost money and they usually fuck up the PQ, I rather just download but those are optimized for efficiency or if they are well encoded take multiple human lifespans to download at my connection speed, and I can't get any faster where I live. That's why I'm moving first chance I get. My dad wants to kill me and I fucking hate this neighborhood.

Umm...CoreAVC is just a decoder. And seriously, stop bragging and spitting out names and acronyms trying to sound important. You're just as bad as Mister Hatt. I am really sick of these pretentious trolls trying to satisfy their own ego.